Latest Developments:
- The Missouri Ethics Commission, at its meeting this week,increased campaign contribution limits in accordance with new constitutional requirements. The changes increase the contribution limits to $2,559 for Senate candidates and $2,046 for House candidates, per election. The limits apply to the August and November 2020 election cycles. The $5.00 gift limit remains unchanged.
- The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics discussed, but did not adopt, a new advisory opinion to provide guidance on the permissibility of gifts to third persons solicited by public officials, including behested contributions to charities. The proposed opinion, which was returned to staff for some minor clarifications, provides a number of factors to consider, but notes that “any gift made by an Interested Source to a third party upon a public official’s personal solicitation would be presumptively prohibited.” Commission staff also discussed soon to be proposed updates and clarifications to the Comprehensive Lobby Regulations. While many changes may be technical and clarifying, policy changes will be included. Those changes include (1) a presumption that personal use of social media is not lobbying (as long as the person is not hired to use the social media), (2) providing that individuals who engage in grassroots lobbying do not have to register (only the entity would be required to register), (3) clarifying when a subsidiary needs to be reported by a parent as part of its lobbying activity, and (4) changes to the source of funding disclosure requirements. A January 1, 2021, effective date is anticipated for those revised regulations following a notice and rulemaking process.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found the Arkansas’ blackout period that restricts the receipt of campaign contributions to a period two years before an election to be unconstitutional. In Jones v. Jegley, the court found that the restriction “goes too far in light of the availability of other, closer-fitting alternatives.” Bloomberg News reports that a longtime activist sought to make donations to candidates for the 2022 election, but was barred – so she sued.
Reminders:
Essential Ethics 2020: With the 2020 elections just around the corner, join Nielsen Merksamer on Friday, February 7 at the Sutter Club in Sacramento, California, from 10:00 to 11:30 AM for a complimentary briefing on the key issues you need to know this election year in California. Sign up here. Contact Jay Carson (jcarson@nmgovlaw.com) with any questions.
In Case You Missed It:
- Feds Allege Mr. Clean may be Dirty: The San Francisco Director of Public Works, whose twitter handle is MrCleanSF, was arrested by the FBI on “suspicion of public corruption.” The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “the allegations concern ‘public trust fraud’ in the awarding of city contracts.”The article indicates that the “schemes involved an envelope of cash, fraudulent city contracts, improper gifts from a Chinese developer and a $2,000 bottle of wine, according to authorities.” The 75-page complaint filed by the FBI in federal District Court details five different schemes the Director and a local restaurateur cooked up.
- Corruption in Los Angeles Too: The United States Department of Justice filed a motion in a criminal case that reveals that a southern California developer, who was indicted on bribery and honest services wire fraud charges, has engaged in a pattern of corrupt relationships. Following the indictment, the FBI tapped the developer’s phone. New allegations include using his own lobbyist as part of his activities and making campaign contributions in exchange for official favors. The Los Angeles Times reports that “Federal investigators arrested (the developer) in 2018, accusing him of bribing a Los Angeles County employee in hopes of securing a lucrative government lease in Hawthorne.” The county official pleaded guilty. The new filing implicates officials in several jurisdictions.
- Scam PACs: Reuters reports on the rising phenomenon of scam PACs – PACs in which virtually all the money received is spent on fundraising, rather than the “causes they profess to support.”“‘Scam PACs’ tend to slip through gaps among agencies that govern elections, charities and telemarketing, regulators say, leaving consumers exposed to misleading or fraudulent pitches.” Neither the Federal Election Commission nor the Federal Trade Commission appears to have a grasp on controlling the spread of these scams. The article notes that the “secretive nature of this and other fundraising operations makes (the PACs) difficult to pin down.”